UN Scientist calls for abolition of IPCC

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

UN Scientist calls for abolition of IPCC
Describes IPCC methods as "a swindle," "phony," "unsound," "flawed."


.
The whole process is a swindle, says Dr Vincent Gray. The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.
The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable, says Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception. The world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony, says Gray, who shares a Nobel as one of IPCC's "2000 scientists." Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts, says Gray. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157. I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?o ... 5&Itemid=1

[x-y-no]

Heh ...

Dr. Vincent Gray is a coal researcher, not a climate scientist. And "expert reviewer for the IPCC" doesn't mean that they asked him to review material -- all it means is that he asked to see the draft report.

Anyone and his mother can send in comments to the IPCC. Doing so doesn't mean that you know the first thing about what you're saying.

EDIT:

By the way, there is no such thing as the "UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel" so it's not in the least meaningful to claim that one has been a member "since its inception."

[Shinyhead]

Well, I kept quiet on this one, but it is a pretty easy to dismiss him, but the IPCC does list him as an expert reviewer.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/203.htm

Scroll down to the NZ list and viola, there he is.

Also, there may not be a formal panel of reviewers, but according to this document (on page 3) http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf the reviewers are invited to comment on the drafts. So it doesn't exactly sound like Fred from down the street just shot off a letter to the ipcc. In fact his reviews have led to changes in wording and such to the various reports (esp. regarding validation of climate computer models). So while you may not like his input, to be fair, the IPCC has taken him seriously and modified reports based on his reviews, and listed him as an expert reviewer.

[x-y-no]

Well, I kept quiet on this one, but it is a pretty easy to dismiss him, but the IPCC does list him as an expert reviewer.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/203.htm

Scroll down to the NZ list and viola, there he is.

Yes, that's a list of people who sent in comments. Had you or I sent in comments and called ourselves "Climate Consultant" (whatever that means) then we would appear in that list as well.

Also, there may not be a formal panel of reviewers, but according to this document (on page 3) http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Who%20is%20who.pdf the reviewers are invited to comment on the drafts. So it doesn't exactly sound like Fred from down the street just shot off a letter to the ipcc.

I don't think that's clear from this document at all. But let's suppose someone from the New Zealand government got the IPCC to actually solicit him for comments. Does that demonstrate his expertise any more than Senator Inhofe doing the same for some American skeptic? My point is that the comments process is entirely open. I had a draft copy of the most recent report a good six months in advance of its release and I had access to the comments form on the web. That's all it takes to submit as many comments as one wishes.

In fact his reviews have led to changes in wording and such to the various reports (esp. regarding validation of climate computer models).

Evidence for this claim? What were the changes? Did they make any substantive difference in the content of the report?

So while you may not like his input, to be fair, the IPCC has taken him seriously and modified reports based on his reviews, and listed him as an expert reviewer.

All the spinning in the world about his alleged status as a respected "expert" (you'd think he'd have some more meaningful title than "climate consultant" in that case) isn't going to convince me that there's any respect whatsoever for his claim that the whole IPCC process is a "swindle."

[Shinyhead]

I don't want to get into a political debate on Dr. Gray so I will leave the IPCC document quotes as my last statement on the issue as defending him will be getting into motivations instead of science.

What is your opinion of Steve McIntyres effort to retest the Bristlecone Pines to verify and update the data, or his unearthing of the poor way data has often been handled and the poor way in which statistical methods have been applied to/with the climate models. The data originally cited is still used as a global temperature proxy in the climate models, but there IS doubt about the data being applicable to global temperature trends.

[x-y-no]

What is your opinion of Steve McIntyres effort to retest the Bristlecone Pines to verify and update the data, or his unearthing of the poor way data has often been handled and the poor way in which statistical methods have been applied to/with the climate models.

I think McIntyre has made some important contributions but the conclusions and insinuations he makes about motivations go way further than the issues he's raised support.

[Shinyhead]

OK, thats fair enough.

Its hard to ask/discuss opinion without getting political so I was treading carefully.